Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• WestJet challenged a proposed class action brought by passengers with disabilities, seeking to strike the claim for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action.

• The plaintiffs alleged that charging additional fares for disability-related seating on international flights was unconscionable and violated consumer protection laws.

• WestJet argued that the Canada Transportation Act and its regulations precluded such claims, invoking the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

• The court analyzed whether the claim was a veiled human rights complaint or a legitimate contractual and consumer protection dispute.

• It was found that the claim was rooted in common law unconscionability and restitution, not discrimination under human rights law.

• The appeal was dismissed, allowing the class action to proceed and affirming that such claims can be heard in provincial superior courts.

Facts and procedural history

The case concerns a proposed class action filed by Paul Gauthier and Christopher Reaume on behalf of Canadians with disabilities who require additional seating on international flights for medical or accessibility reasons. The defendants are WestJet and, originally, Air Canada (not involved in the appeal). The plaintiffs argue that being charged extra fares for necessary accommodations, such as adjacent seats or space for medical equipment, is unconscionable, discriminatory, and contrary to provincial consumer protection legislation.

The legal challenge originated when WestJet applied to the Supreme Court of British Columbia to strike the plaintiffs’ claim, arguing the court had no jurisdiction. WestJet claimed that the matter fell exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transportation Agency and was governed by federal law, particularly the Canada Transportation Act and the Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations (AT Regulation). WestJet also invoked the doctrine of federal paramountcy, suggesting that any provincial consumer law that might interfere with federal transportation regulation should be deemed inoperative.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia rejected WestJet’s arguments in 2024 (2024 BCSC 231), finding the plaintiffs’ claim to be grounded in contractual and equitable doctrines, not human rights legislation. WestJet appealed.

Issues on appeal and Court of Appeal decision

The British Columbia Court of Appeal reviewed three main issues: whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction, whether the plaintiffs' claims were barred due to federal law, and whether any inconsistency with federal regulations rendered provincial consumer laws inapplicable.

On the jurisdiction issue, the Court rejected WestJet’s argument that the claim was essentially a human rights matter disguised as a contract claim. The Court held that the plaintiffs were not seeking to enforce statutory rights under human rights legislation but were pursuing independent common law and consumer protection remedies. The pleadings were based on unconscionability and unjust enrichment, which fall within the jurisdiction of provincial superior courts.

Next, the Court addressed the claim that section 31(2) of the AT Regulation expressly permitted WestJet to charge additional fares for international travel, and that this precluded any argument of unconscionability. The Court disagreed, noting that the regulation merely exempts such charges from a specific federal prohibition—it does not affirmatively grant a legal entitlement immune to judicial scrutiny under provincial law.

Finally, on the issue of federal paramountcy, the Court emphasized that overlapping federal and provincial legislation can co-exist unless there is a true conflict or a frustration of federal purpose. No such conflict was established here. The Court found that it was not plain and obvious that provincial consumer protection laws were incompatible with the federal scheme.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed. The British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed that the Supreme Court of British Columbia has jurisdiction to hear the proposed class action. It held that the plaintiffs’ claims—based on unconscionability, unjust enrichment, and consumer protection—are legitimate common law and statutory causes of action and do not conflict with federal law. This decision paves the way for the class action to proceed and affirms the ability of individuals to challenge airline pricing practices on equitable and consumer protection grounds.